The Conservative Case for Marriage Equality

[morningstar2651]

Same-sex marriage: State laws banning it make no sense | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg Herald-Journal | Spartanburg SC

"Marriage is a sacred institution, but it's sacred for what it stands for, not what defines it.
​

Throughout world history, it was commonplace for marriage to be more about feudal lords marrying off sons and daughters for geopolitical alliances, or for the linking of houses and families for monetary gain. Love wasn't even an issue. Marrying out of one's social caste? Don't even think about it. Until 50 years ago, one really couldn't marry outside of one's own ethnicity/race in many parts of this nation.
​

Marriage, just like humanity, has come a long way since countries were united because of the forced marriage of children. . ."
​

Click the link above to read more.

I thought this was an interesting argument and was wondering what our conservative members thought about it.

 

[Copperpennies12]

Same-sex marriage: State laws banning it make no sense | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg Herald-Journal | Spartanburg SC

"Marriage is a sacred institution, but it's sacred for what it stands for, not what defines it.
​

Throughout world history, it was commonplace for marriage to be more about feudal lords marrying off sons and daughters for geopolitical alliances, or for the linking of houses and families for monetary gain. Love wasn't even an issue. Marrying out of one's social caste? Don't even think about it. Until 50 years ago, one really couldn't marry outside of one's own ethnicity/race in many parts of this nation.
​

Marriage, just like humanity, has come a long way since countries were united because of the forced marriage of children. . ."
​

Click the link above to read more.

I thought this was an interesting argument and was wondering what our conservative members thought about it.

The fatal flaw in the argument comes from trying to present the history of marriage from the minority of practices.

He starts off citing feudal lords. How many run of the mill folk were getting married based on love/survival and how many were getting married as part of feudalism?

 

[nolongerhome]

I think you just latched on to a bit of an outlying point there as a means of avoiding dealing with the actual argument.

The fact is that for the majority of this history of marriage in a majority of societal contexts, "love" hasn't played much of a role. Whether you were poor or rich, wherever you were from, for the best part of human civilisation decisions about marriage were generally made FOR you not BY you, generally by parents or elders, and generally for economic reasons in some way. The practice is still common in many parts of the world.

The article opens with this practice happening at the level of royalty, but that is simply a reflection of a practice common throughout most people at most times. The author is right to point out that the idea of what marriage is about has changed, particularly in the last century, where concepts of economic status/caste/race/age have become less important, while the idea of committing to someone because you love them and want to spend your life with them has become more important. As with all social institutions, the definition of what is "right" changes. The concept of marriage has changed greatly, but the institution still remains and is no "weaker" then before because of those changes (in fact, I would say the concept is stronger as more emphasis is placed on individual wills to join their life with another person than is placed on fullfiling social obligations with little regard to the desires of the people involved).

But as I said, that ignores the real point of the article, which is this:

But more than a religious and cultural upbringing that many share, the conviction as a true conservative compels an advocacy for marriage equality. Anybody with a strong commitment to protecting individual liberties, securing personal freedoms and advocating for small government, letting people live their lives by their own choosing without someone else telling them how to live it, should be supportive of marriage equality.

Which I think is what ought to be discussed in this thread. Isn't it hypocrisy to argue for increased liberty, while at the same time infringing on the liberty of others? Is it anything other than an arbitrary decision to apply an ethic to some parts of life but not others?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Same-sex marriage: State laws banning it make no sense | GoUpstate.com | Spartanburg Herald-Journal | Spartanburg SC

"Marriage is a sacred institution, but it's sacred for what it stands for, not what defines it.
​

Throughout world history, it was commonplace for marriage to be more about feudal lords marrying off sons and daughters for geopolitical alliances, or for the linking of houses and families for monetary gain. Love wasn't even an issue. Marrying out of one's social caste? Don't even think about it. Until 50 years ago, one really couldn't marry outside of one's own ethnicity/race in many parts of this nation.
​

Marriage, just like humanity, has come a long way since countries were united because of the forced marriage of children. . ."
​

Click the link above to read more.

I thought this was an interesting argument and was wondering what our conservative members thought about it.

Anything goes is not a conservative belief. Altering marriage to mean same-gendered individuals is absurd on its face.

Who's the husband and who's the wife? Or is even asking the obvious now considered as intolerant or a phobia?

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Probably the most perfect description of it.

 

[nolongerhome]

Anything goes is not a conservative belief. Altering marriage to mean same-gendered individuals is absurd on its face.

Who's the husband and who's the wife? Or is even asking the obvious now considered as intolerant or a phobia?

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Probably the most perfect description of it.

100 years ago altering marriage to mean people from different races could marry would have been "absurd", so simply stating that to you homosexual marriage is absurd doesn't really come off as much of an argument.

The liberty being argued for in the cited article is far from "anything goes". It is a case of allowing individuals freedom where it does not infringe upon the freedom of others (ie. a pretty classical liberal conception of freedom, the one that underpins much of western political and economic practice).

Why don't you address that? It would seem to me to be a more productive avenue then dragging in gender roles (which are not as objectively distinct as you seem to think and are surely up to the two people in the relationship to decide upon as they see fit?).

 

[Polycarp_fan]

100 years ago altering marriage to mean people from different races could marry would have been "absurd", so simply stating that to you homosexual marriage is absurd doesn't really come off as much of an argument.

Canard or red herring? No matter both are used to throw us off the scent. Marriage between different races happened all the time. And even Blacks reject the comparison. Especially Blacks on Prop 8.

The liberty being argued for in the cited article is far from "anything goes". It is a case of allowing individuals freedom where it does not infringe upon the freedom of others (ie. a pretty classical liberal conception of freedom, the one that underpins much of western political and economic practice).

Why don't you address that?

OK. As is proven in the Alameda schools, gay activism intrudes on others.

It would seem to me to be a more productive avenue then dragging in gender roles (which are not as objectively distinct as you seem to think and are surely up to the two people in the relationship to decide upon as they see fit?).

You have just reaffirmed Anything Goes. And of course, The Gay Agenda.

Of course also, YOU have described the LIBERAL case for same-sex marriage.

 

[Supernaut]

Marriage has morphed over the millenia past as it continues to do so today. King Soloman, wise as he was had 2000 wives? Not moral by todays standards and would be condemned by every fundy and conservative Church. Though in his time, it was all about procreating to build up the nation of Isreal. Paul says that although it was adulterous for a young widow to remarry, he later reccomends that they do so in order to save themselves from following down a path toward satan. So, I believe there is sufficient reason to allow gay marriage to save them from delving further/deeper into the licentious lifestyle.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Marriage has morphed over the millenia past as it continues to do so today. King Soloman, wise as he was had 2000 wives? Not moral by todays standards and would be condemned by every fundy and conservative Church. Though in his time, it was all about procreating to build up the nation of Isreal. Paul says that although it was adulterous for a young widow to remarry, he later reccomends that they do so in order to save themselves from following down a path toward satan. So, I believe there is sufficient reason to allow gay marriage to save them from delving further/deeper into the licentious lifestyle.

Even Gay theologians admit that homosexuality was a pagan idolatrous activity. And you want homosexuality to be celebrated in The Church?

Let's see what happened to Solomon when his wisdom ran out:

1 Kings 11

1 King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, "You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods." Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.



7 On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. 8 He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods.
9 The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. 10 Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the LORD's command. 11 So the LORD said to Solomon, "Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. 12 Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen."

///



Hint! Hint!

 

[nolongerhome]

Canard or red herring? No matter both are used to throw us off the scent. Marriage between different races happened all the time. And even Blacks reject the comparison. Especially Blacks on Prop 8.

No, just an example of the fact that ideas change and become accepted. That many black people voted against gay marriage doesn't demonstrate that there isn't a logical link between the inequalities faced by black people and the inequalities faced by homosexuals, it just demonstrates that a lot of them were unhappy when they were subject to different, unfair, laws due to being a minority but don't really mind what happens to another minority.

OK. As is proven in the Alameda schools, gay activism intrudes on others.

You will need to excuse my ignorance of the who, what, when where and why of the Alameda schools, but aren't you introducing a red herring here? What does this have to do with the question in this thread? How does allowing two homosexual people to marry each other impact negatively on the lives of anyone else? What justification is there for the government to restrict their liberty in this case?

You have just reaffirmed Anything Goes. And of course, The Gay Agenda.

Hardly. The problem is that you are correlating a societal difference with a biological difference. There are more and more families where the mother works full time and the father stays home to look after the children and the house - that is the man in the relationship plays the role of "wife", the woman "husband". Is there anything wrong with that? The distinction of roles has never been completely black an white. In most relationships these days there is a vast grey area of social practice where "husbands" take on roles that "wives" used to be associated with, and vice versa (with men becoming more involved in house work and women becoming more involved in work outside the house, just as one example, from times in the past), so it makes little sense to ask "who is the wife and who is the husband" - in most cases, even in heterosexual relationships, that answer is becoming increasingly meaningless.

Societal roles are not fixed. I don't see how there is really any problem with this one in particular being considered like any other societal role. I don't see how there is any harm in two people in a relationship deciding between themselves how they will take on these roles in their relationship, I don't see how any of their choices has a negative impact on you or anyone else and I don't see why the government should stop two people from making that decision together.

Of course also, YOU have described the LIBERAL case for same-sex marriage.

Yes, those are "liberal" philosophies. The point is that this liberal philosophy is what underpins the policies of conservative governments around the world, including the Republican party - a party that stands for a free market and minimum government intervention in the lives of its citizens (at least rhetorically). So, let's bring this back to the point of this thread - why do people that support a party that at least rhetorically expresses its support of liberalism (ie. free markets, absence of government intervention in the lives of citizens except in the case that that absence of intervention allows an individuals exercise of liberty negatively infringe on another's), take the opposite position in this particular case? Isn't that hypocrisy? Is it ethical to arbitrarily apply that philosophy?

 

[morningstar2651]

Anything goes is not a conservative belief. Altering marriage to mean same-gendered individuals is absurd on its face.

Who's the husband and who's the wife? Or is even asking the obvious now considered as intolerant or a phobia?

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Probably the most perfect description of it.

Do you disagree with the following quote?

"Conservatism, in its most basic sense, is the affirmation that the individual, enlightened by God, can and does have the ability to make the best choices for himself/herself and his/her family."​

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Do you disagree with the following quote?

"Conservatism, in its most basic sense, is the affirmation that the individual, enlightened by God, can and does have the ability to make the best choices for himself/herself and his/her family."
​

First, homosexuality is clearly not a condition of enlightenment brought to the afflicted BY the God described in the Bible. And I will agree with you if you are stating that GLBT culture is based on some other god idea. As long as conservative values are to be the determining factor of the subject of marriage.

And secondly, this stands firm still in conservative thought:

Anything goes is not a conservative belief. Altering marriage to mean same-gendered individuals is absurd on its face.

Who's the husband and who's the wife? Or is even asking the obvious now considered as intolerant or a phobia?

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Probably the most perfect description of it.

 

[atomweaver]

Excellent, morningstar2651. It seems that polycarpfan does disagree with the quote, but cannot bring himself to admit it openly.

 

[nadroj1985]

This is perhaps the libertarian case for marriage equality, and libertarianism is certainly a good bit different from modern conservatism, which generally advocates more government-imposed restrictions in social life than modern liberalism, while being a bit more wary of such restrictions in the fiscal sphere. I don't think a modern conservative is really going to be much convinced by the argument that they really ought to be libertarians, especially if they have religious motivations as well (as they almost always do).

In any case, the social liberal runs the risk of a slippery-slope argument here. It is definitely worthwhile to point out that the institution of marriage is not static, and has undergone a vast array of changes over the years. What it means to us now is far, far different from what it meant to most of our ancestors. However, that of course doesn't entail that any change to the institution is legitimate or ought to be accepted. I'm not saying that I think gay marriage is an illegitimate change (quite the contrary), but it takes more than just saying, "look at all these changes in the past, gay marriage is next."

 

[nolongerhome]

This is perhaps the libertarian case for marriage equality, and libertarianism is certainly a good bit different from modern conservatism, which generally advocates more government-imposed restrictions in social life than modern liberalism, while being a bit more wary of such restrictions in the fiscal sphere. I don't think a modern conservative is really going to be much convinced by the argument that they really ought to be libertarians, especially if they have religious motivations as well (as they almost always do).

That is true, but this does at least demonstrate the arbitrariness with which the social conservative/economic liberal applies their ideology. That inconsistency is really quite telling.

In any case, the social liberal runs the risk of a slippery-slope argument here. It is definitely worthwhile to point out that the institution of marriage is not static, and has undergone a vast array of changes over the years. What it means to us now is far, far different from what it meant to most of our ancestors. However, that of course doesn't entail that any change to the institution is legitimate or ought to be accepted. I'm not saying that I think gay marriage is an illegitimate change (quite the contrary), but it takes more than just saying, "look at all these changes in the past, gay marriage is next."

Of course the fact that institutions do change doesn't meant that they have to change or that any change to them is "good". In this case, however, the change being discussed fits in with the lineage of the other changes discussed - racial, economic, cultural inequalities that were considered "normal" within the institution have been removed, there is more freedom for people to marry the person that they want to marry. Whether or not these changes are "good" or not can be discussed, but from the perspective of an ideology that argues that the individual and not the state should make their owns choices, these changes are consistent with the philosophy of freedom that conservative parties around the world, including the Republican party, state they intend to uphold.

 

[nadroj1985]

That is true, but this does at least demonstrate the arbitrariness with which the social conservative/economic liberal applies their ideology. That inconsistency is really quite telling.

It doesn't necessarily have to be arbitrary, nor is it necessarily an inconsistency. It's certainly possible to think that such restrictions are effective in the social sphere, and counterproductive in the economic sphere. The value of freedom need not be as absolutized as you seem to think. One of the big problems with current political discourse is that we can't seem to talk about freedom without putting it in all caps, and treating it like a freaking Platonic superidea. We should be talking about the value of various freedoms, not of "freedom." Some freedoms are valuable, some are not.

There are a large number of things that no one ought to be free to do -- killing people indiscriminately, for instance, or even evading taxes. Are these restrictions on our "freedom"? Of course, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. We shouldn't view absolute freedom as some sort of a given. We are not born into the world completely free and self-sufficient (this latter meant both physically, economically, and morally). We need others, and they need us. In such a scenario, we have to restrict our behavior in certain ways to make a society. It's worthwhile to debate over which restrictions are legitimate, and which aren't. It's silly and beside the point to worry about whether there ought to be restrictions at all.

I certainly disagree with the fiscal liberal/social conservative on practically every issue, but I'd be "inconsistent" by your lights, too. I think that certain restrictions in the economic sphere are generally productive, while I think it largely absurd that the government should have much say in whether I can marry another man or not. But I'm not inconsistent; I just think there are decent reasons for the former restriction, and none for the latter.

 

[Copperpennies12]

That is true, but this does at least demonstrate the arbitrariness with which the social conservative/economic liberal applies their ideology. That inconsistency is really quite telling.



Of course the fact that institutions do change doesn't meant that they have to change or that any change to them is "good". In this case, however, the change being discussed fits in with the lineage of the other changes discussed - racial, economic, cultural inequalities that were considered "normal" within the institution have been removed, there is more freedom for people to marry the person that they want to marry. Whether or not these changes are "good" or not can be discussed, but from the perspective of an ideology that argues that the individual and not the state should make their owns choices, these changes are consistent with the philosophy of freedom that conservative parties around the world, including the Republican party, state they intend to uphold.

Change for the sake of change as a positive thing? Never made sense and never will.

I'm sure those who attend to that progressive philosophy would be quite incensed if their employer decided after 10 years of employment that though he had been paying them appropriately for the last decade he suddenly wanted to be "progressive" and begin paying the employee rather poorly despite the fact that allowing employees to exploit workers would be a quite libertarian thing to do.

 

[nolongerhome]

Change for the sake of change as a positive thing? Never made sense and never will.

I'm sure those who attend to that progressive philosophy would be quite incensed if their employer decided after 10 years of employment that though he had been paying them appropriately for the last decade he suddenly wanted to be "progressive" and begin paying the employee rather poorly despite the fact that allowing employees to exploit workers would be a quite libertarian thing to do.

I have no idea how any of that refers to what you quoted.

Who is arguing for "change for the sake of change"? The whole point is that this is change for the sake of giving a minority equality, in much the same way that the previous changes to the institution of marriage have brought about greater equality (be it racial, cultural or economic), and that is a good thing, isn't it? Do we want to live in a society that discriminates against people simply because they are different?

I really don't understand what you are trying to prove with the second paragraph - how does that relate to the issue at hand?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Excellent, morningstar2651. It seems that polycarpfan does disagree with the quote, but cannot bring himself to admit it openly.

I can't agree with it because the big G was used for God.

I'm a Christian, and there is no such thing as same-sex marriage to the God we worship.

Duh.

 

[nolongerhome]

It doesn't necessarily have to be arbitrary, nor is it necessarily an inconsistency. It's certainly possible to think that such restrictions are effective in the social sphere, and counterproductive in the economic sphere. The value of freedom need not be as absolutized as you seem to think. One of the big problems with current political discourse is that we can't seem to talk about freedom without putting it in all caps, and treating it like a freaking Platonic superidea. We should be talking about the value of various freedoms, not of "freedom." Some freedoms are valuable, some are not.

There are a large number of things that no one ought to be free to do -- killing people indiscriminately, for instance, or even evading taxes. Are these restrictions on our "freedom"? Of course, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. We shouldn't view absolute freedom as some sort of a given. We are not born into the world completely free and self-sufficient (this latter meant both physically, economically, and morally). We need others, and they need us. In such a scenario, we have to restrict our behavior in certain ways to make a society. It's worthwhile to debate over which restrictions are legitimate, and which aren't. It's silly and beside the point to worry about whether there ought to be restrictions at all.

I certainly disagree with the fiscal liberal/social conservative on practically every issue, but I'd be "inconsistent" by your lights, too. I think that certain restrictions in the economic sphere are generally productive, while I think it largely absurd that the government should have much say in whether I can marry another man or not. But I'm not inconsistent; I just think there are decent reasons for the former restriction, and none for the latter.

I think you have mischaracterised my position here somewhat, as I think that the way that freedom is defined from this liberal perspective is not "FREEDOM", a concept under which we must all bow down - it is a pragmatic conception of freedom, or as you say a position that takes into account the value of freedom. The freedom that the OP's article is discussing is a freedom of the individual with clear limitations - limitations that reflect the fact that the individual lives in a society of many individuals.

I therefore don't think I've been arguing that there should be no restrictions at all in society at all - I've been trying to get people to talk about a conception of freedom that provides the basis for many political groupings, including the Republican party. This is a conception with a clear concept of where the limitation of freedom is legitimate and where it is illegitimate.

I think it still makes perfect sense to talk about "inconsistency" in this context - it is inconsistent when proponents of this philosophy of freedom overstep the limits that that philosophy claims are necessary and encroach on the freedom of others when it is not justified. The same principles are underlying the philosophical position, be it applied to economics or politics or religion or hair styles (ie. whatever). If the principles of this position are to mean anything other than the arbitrary desires of a group of people with no consistent basis, they should be applied consistently. If they aren't, it brings in to question the value of those initial principles.

So, if we return to this conception of freedom, of when government intervention is necessary, we get to the point where it is illegitimate for the government to intervene in matters in which an individual (or individuals) can make a decision on something that will effect themselves while causing no harm or restriction of freedom to any other individual - how should this be applied to the case of homosexual marriage? Considering the marriage of two men or two women to each other is a decision that effects the individuals involved, that it doesn't impose any unnecessary or illegitimate restrictions on others, the principles of freedom put forward in the original article(with their clear definition of limitations), principles which (rhetorically at least) are the principles that conservative parties have built up their political ideologies, surely suggest that the government, nor any one else, has the right to deny this freedom of individual choice?

 

[atomweaver]

I can't agree with it because the big G was used for God.

I'm a Christian, and there is no such thing as same-sex marriage to the God we worship.

Duh.

I see. Your Christian mandate prevents you from being a real conservative. It compels to to meddle in other's personal affairs.

You continue to assert your own choices as superior those that others would make for themselves; you are like the worst of PETA radicals, but you would dictate what other people do with marriage instead of meat. Wow lookit that, you're a radical leftie liberal... Who knew?